Re: core.async: communicating termination
> > This brings up another issue: Currently writing to a closed channel is a > no-op, but it probably should throw an exception. Similarly, closing a > closed channel is a no-op, but also probably should throw an exception. > Both are things that a well behaved sender should never do, since they know > when they close, so they know not to keep putting stuff in there. Or, they > are warned of the impending close by some coordination process & the same > rules apply. > Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but why not return true on successful put, false otherwise? That would allow for the following: (loop [] (let [results (get-metrics metrics)] (when (async/>! mchan results) (recur You could terminate blocks simply by closing the channel. You also avoid the messy higher order (quit) channel. -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Clojure Sticker
+1 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
What are people using for distributed workers?
I'm curious as to what people are using for workers/queues. We're currently using storm, but im interested in evaluating alternatives. Things I like about storm: * Upload a jar and it automatically distributes the code to all worker nodes. * Easy to write/reuse topologies without horribly distorting my code. * Easy to visualize data as it flows through multiple queues. * Easy to do fail/retry. Things I don't like about storm: * Can be somewhat flaky when performing tests, things fail/succeed in unpredictable ways but work in production or vice versa. * Can't distinguish between failure (exception) and timeout. * Must dedicate resources full time from a limited worker pool even through that queue is only used sporadicly. * Can't link storm directly which means I need to maintain separate projects. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
